The Treaties between Persia and Athens Raubitschek, Antony E Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Fall 1964; 5, 3; ProQuest pg. 151

The Treaties between Persia 
and Athens 

Antony E. Raubitschek 

XCORDING TO the ancient tradition represented by Diodorus 
(12.26.2, derived from Ephorus) and Demosthenes (15.29), there 
were two treaties (8tTTa:~ avv(}ijKat) between Persia and Athens 

(or Greece), the famous Peace of Kallias and the equally famous Peace 
of Antalkidas.1 The genuineness and the historicity of the Peace of 
Kallias have been questioned by Theopompus (FGrHist U5 F 154) 

because its Attic copy was written in Ionic script (which came into 
official use not before the end of the fifth century) and by the moderns 
because Thucydides does not specifically refer to it. The date assigned 
to this treaty is the time immediately following the death of Kimon 
(Diodorus 12.4.4), but its absolute date and its connection with the 
so-called Congress Decree of Pericles (Plutarch, Pericles 17) will have 
to be argued separately.2 The historicity of the Peace is further 
attested by Diodorus (9.10.5), who emphasizes the fact that the 
Athenians in signing the treaty with Artaxerxes were breaking the 
oath of everlasting enmity against the barbarian, which they had 
sworn on the battle field of Plataea.3 Its validity, however. is made 
doubtful by the fact that the chief negotiator, Kallias, was accused of 
bribery. condemned, almost executed, and fined fifty talents.4 

Plutarch's account (Cimon 13) suggests that the document itself was 
available in the Athenian archives, and that the treaty was kept by 
the Persians while they were militarily weak and disregarded by the 
Athenians while they were militarily strong. In fact, Demosthenes 
referred to the two treaties with Persia as examples of the general 

1 See now H. Bengtson, Die Staatsvertraege des Alterttnns 2 (1962) Nos. 152 and 242, where 
may be found all Significant references. 

2 See my tentative suggestion in "Kimons Zuriickberufung," Historia 3 (1954/5) 379-380, 
that the death of Kimon be placed before 455 B.C. 

a See my remarks in "The Covenant of Plataea," TAPA 91 (1960) 181 with n.6 (also on 
p.182). 

f, Demosthenes 19.273; see my remarks in "Herodotus and the Inscriptions," University 
of London, Institute of Classical Studies, Bulletin 8 (1961) 61. 

151 



152 THE TREATIES BETWEEN PERSIA AND ATHENS 

" \ \ ~ ~ , ~ ~ , .:!.l: I statement a7TOOITa~ 7TpO~ 7TJV 7Tapovuav ovvap.w TWV oLl<a£WV <M.:.£ovp.E'tIOV~ 

(15.28) which, I think, alludes to the view expressed by Thucydides 
(5 89) ~ I , \ ~" " I ~ , ~,< , 

• O£KaLa ••• a7TO 7TJ~ £U7J~ avaYKTJS KpW€TaL. OvvaTa u€ o£ 7TPOVXOV7'€S 

7TpaauovuL Ka~ ot aUO€V€LS gvvxwpovuw, and again (5.105.2) 00 av KpaTfj 

" apX€LV. 

It is, however, not with these two famous treaties that I am con­
cerned at the moment but with two others which have not fared so 
well in our literary tradition, ancient and modern; they are the treaty 
with Dareios concluded in the last decade of the sixth century and that 
with the second Dareios concluded shortly before 415 B.C. 

Herodotus reports (5.73) that the Athenians sent an embassy to 

Sardis to conclude an alliance with the Persians, after they had driven 
out Isagoras and Kleomenes, and because they feared to be subdued 
by the Spartans under Kleomenes. This passage, as well as that other 
about the famous shield signal (6.121-131), has given rise to a pro­
tracted debate about the existence in Athens of a pro-Persian party.6 
What is important is the fact that the Athenians wished to conclude 
an alliance with Persia which should protect them against an impend­
ing Spartan attack, and that the ambassadors actually concluded an 
alliance by offering on their own account submission to Dareios. The 
concluding sentence of Herodotus' story ("these [namely the Athenian 
envoys] went back home and were then held greatly responsible [for 
what they had done]") has been taken to mean that the Athenians at 
once repudiated the agreement of the envoys with Artaphrenes. 
B. D. Meritt pointed out, however, that Hthe Athenians were on good 
terms with Persia and that they were interested in maintaining 
friendly relations" when they once more sent envoys to Sardis com­
plaining about the propaganda of Hippias and asked the Persians not 
to believe people who had been exiled from Athens (Herodotus 5.96).6 

Such a complaint was justified if Athens considered herself still an 
ally of Persia.7 There is, however, pace Meritt and Robinson, not the 
slightest indication of any friendly attitude on the part of Athens 
towards Hippias. The refusal by the Athenians to restore Hippias and 
espedally their participation in the Ionian Revolt (Herodotus 5.97) 

6 Most of the references have now been conveniently assembled by P. Leveque and 
P. Vidal-Naquet, Clisthene l'Athenien [Annales ... de BesaltflJlt 65] (Paris 1964) 113, n.2. 

• "An Early Archon List," Hesperia 8 (1939) 63-64. 
7 While M. F. McGregor questioned this interpretation in "The Pro-Persian Party at 

Athens," HSCP Suppl. 1 (1940) 79, C. A. Robinson, Jr in "Athenian Politics, 510-486 B.C.," 

AJP 66 (1945) 247, seems to accept it. 



ANTONY E. RAUBITSCHEK 153 

constituted a violation of their treaty with Persia, for which Dareios 
wanted to punish them at Marathon (Herodotus 5.105). 

Closely connected with the question whether or not there was a 
pro-Persian party at Athens is another-whether Kleisthenes and his 
family (the Alcmeonids) were responsible for the first embassy to 
Persia, and thus for the conclusion of the treaty. Herodotus certainly 
does not say so (5.73), nor does he identify the envoys, either the first 
ones or the second ones (5.96), but in talking about the shield signal 
after the battle of Marathon (6.115) he emphasizes that the responsi­
bility for the plot with the Persians was given to the Alcmeonids, and 
in his lengthy apology (6.121 and 123) he repeatedly states that the 
Alcmeonids were anti-tyrannical; I think that it is significant that he 
has nothing to say about their connection with the Persians. The 
question may well be asked whether Herodotus did not deliberately 
suppress some information on the part played by the Alcmeonids in 
making and in keeping the treaty with the Persians, because he did 
not want to taint Pericles with the charge of a pro-Persian attitude 
(6.131). 

There can be little doubt that the punishment to which the 
Alcmeonids were subjected because of the suspicion that they had 
plotted with the Persians was the ostracism to which Megakles and 
Xanthippos were condemned, the one a nephew of Kleisthenes, the 
other the husband of a niece.S Kleisthenes may have meant the law of 
ostracism to be strictly anti-tyrannical, but it was used at once not only 
against the leader of the tyrant's party, Hipparchos, but also against 
those Alcmeonids who, by being pro-Persian, seemed to have contri­
buted to the danger of the restoration of tyranny.9 It may well be, 
therefore, that Kleisthenes, Megakles, and Xanthippos had something 
to do with the two embassies to Persia, and that the punishment of 
the envoys to which Herodotus alludes (5.73) consisted in the ostra­
cism of Megakles and Xanthippos. 

Seen in this way, the first Athenian embassy to Sardis seems less 
surprising because Alkmeon, after whom the family was named, was 
a friend of Kroisos and had visited him in Sardis.10 Considering that 
the Persians were the successors of the Lydians and that Kroisos re-

• See my remarks on "The Ostracism of Xanthippos," AJA 51 (1947) 259, and on the 
chronology "Die Rueckkehr des Aristeides," Historia 8 (1959) 127-128. 

B See my remarks in "The Origin of Ostracism," AJA 55 (1951) 221 and 225-226. 
10 Herodotus 6.125; for the family see F. W. Mitchel in "Megakles," TAPA 88 (1957) 127-

] 30 and T. L. Shear, Jr in "Koisyra," Phoenix 17 (1963) 99-112. 



154 THE TREATIES BETWEEN PERSIA AND ATHENS 

tained good relations with the Persians (Herodotus 3.36), the Alcmeo­
nids may have suggested sending envoys to Sardis. The emotionally 
charged contrast between Greeks and barbarians belongs to a later 
time, that of the Persian Wars. 

If Pericles' father, uncle, and grandfather had good relations with 
Persia before the Persian Wars, it is understandable that Pericles him­
self should have had little enthusiasm to continue the war against 
Persia when he rose to prominence. This was at a time when the 
Persian War had virtually come to a standstill, that is after Kimon's 
great victories in Pamphylia, towards the end of the sixties of the fifth 
century. Having had no share in the Egyptian Expedition, and pur­
suing an active policy within Greece proper, Pericles was glad to see 
the Persian War come to an end and to make peace with Persia. 
The effect of this policy upon the Athenian alliance, which had been 
founded for the purpose of continuing the war against Persia, is a 
problem which must be discussed separately; for our purposes it 
suffices to place the Peace of Kallias into the context of the treaty 
relations between Athens and Persia which began soon after the return 
to power of the Alcmeonid Kleisthenes. 

It is unfortunate, but perhaps not surprising, that the Athenian 
treaty with Dareios has left so few traces in our literary tradition that 
it was not even included in Bengtson's Staatsvertraege. After all, it was 
first broken by Persia when she supported Hippias, who had been 
expelled from Athens, and later by Athens when she supported the 
Ionian Revolt, and it became quickly forgotten during the long 
Persian Wars which lasted almost a whole generation, that of Kimon. 
When Kimon died and a new treaty was drawn up, the power situa­
tion had radically changed. No longer did Athens seek protection 
against Sparta by attaching herself to Persia, but both powers were 
willing and anxious to recognize each other's spheres of influence and 
power in order to be able to devote themselves to other more pressing 
problems, the Persians to other parts of their far-flung empire, the 
Athenians to the organization of their allies and to the impending 
conflict with Sparta. 

Considering the Persian successes in Egypt, where they were able 
to crush the native revolt and the Athenian expeditionary force, and 
considering the traditionally aggressive policy of Athens, one should 
recognize that the peace between Persia and Athens remained un­
disturbed for many years. The claim has been made that Pericles' 



ANTONY E. RAUBITSCHEK 155 

Pontic Expedition (Plutarch, Pericles 20.1-2) violated the peace with 
Persia and must have been undertaken before this peace was signed.ll 
Since Sinope was a Greek city, the Athenians had a right to concern 
themselves with her, and the treaty did not limit the range of the 
Athenian fleet; in fact, in this very passage Plutarch emphasizes 
Pericles' restraint and his care not to provoke Persia (20.3). More 
serious, however, was the support given to the Samian oligarchs by 
Pissouthnes, the Persian satrap in Sardis ;12 the entry of the Phoenician 
fleet into the Aegean was feared,13 but it may never have taken place. 
Even if the satrap had acted on his own, this was an unfriendly move, 
the danger of which was not lost on Pericles. The ruthlessness of his 
conduct in crushing the Samian revolt was caused to a large extent by 
Persia's support of the rebels. Years later, on the occasion of the revolt 
of Mytilene, it was suggested to ask for help from Pissouthnes, but 
nothing came of it (Thucydides 3.31.1). Pissouthnes himself revolted 
from the King after the accession of Dareios, and his son Amorges did 
the same, perhaps at the same time.14 

It is a fair assumption that Athens was at peace with Persia ever 
since Kimon's death. This assumption is supported by several pieces 
of evidence, all coming from the mid-twenties of the fifth century. 
First of all, there is a scene in Aristophanes' Acharnians (61-127), which 
if nothing else shows clearly that the Athenians were on friendly terms 
with Persia, that the sending of ambassadors to Persia and the receiv­
ing of envoys from Persia was considered nothing unusual, and that 
the Athenians were not surprised at the notion that they were asking 
for financial assistance from the Great King,15 In full agreement with 
this passage in a comedy which was produced early in 425 B.C. is a 
story told by Thucydides, which speaks of another Athenian embassy 
which was sent to Susa but actually went only as far as Ephesos when 
word was received of the death of Artaxerxes; at this news the 
Athenian envoys returned home (4.50). Both Wade-Gery and 
Andrewes16 have called attention to this episode, but they have not 

11 See c.g. J. H. Oliver in "The Peace of Callias and the Pontic Expedition of Pericles," 
Historia 6 (1957) 254-255. 

12 Thucydides 1.115.4-5; Plutarch, Pericles 25.3-4. 
13 Thucydides 1.116.1-3; Plutarch, Pericles 26.1. 
14 Ctesias, Persica 52 ed. Henry; Thucydides 8.5.5; 19.2; 28.2-5; 54.3. 
15 See also Thucydides 2.7.1, a passage in which the historian says that «both sides" 

(€KaT£poL) sought aid from Persia. 
16 "The Peace of Kallias," HSCP SUpp!. 1 (1940) 131; "Thucydides and the Persians," 

Historia 10 (1961) 1-5. 



156 THE TREATIES BETWEEN PERSIA AND ATHENS 

emphasized that the Athenian envoys went under an existing treaty 
and not in order to conclude a new one. Obviously, the Athenians 
were shocked to hear that the Spartans were trying to negotiate for 
aid from Persia,17 and they were prepared to complain about it, just 
as eighty years earlier they had complained about the anti-Athenian 
propaganda of Hippias. When news of the king's death reached them, 
they returned home because they realized that this was no time to 
discuss this matter at the Persian court. Together with the scene in 
the Acharnians, the story in Thucydides testifies to the continuation 
of friendly relations between Athens and Persia during the Archi­
damian War. 

We learn from Andocides (3.29) that his uncle Epilykos, who later 
died in Sicily (1.117), negotiated a treaty of friendship for all time 
between Persia and Athens, that the Athenians abandoned this treaty 
soon after it was concluded by supporting Amorges, and that the 
Great King accordingly agreed to give financial aid to the Spartans, as 
recorded by Thucydides (8.14.4-5; 17.4-18). It has been assumed by 
Wade-Gery and Andrewes18 that this treaty was concluded "in the 
first half of 423" B.C. (Andrewes) because during this Attic year 
Epilykos was first secretary and Neokleides was secretary of the tribe 
Aigeis, and we have a decree in which a treaty with the Great King is 
mentioned and which was passed on the day on which Neokleides was 
epistates ;19 Thucydides proposed this decree, and a Thucydides was 
treasurer during the year 424/3. All this is good but circumstantial 
evidence, and Andrewes pointed out its chief weakness when he 
observed that the "negotiations must have been rapid, since they 
necessarily begin after Dareios' accession (December, 424 B.C.) and yet 
were complete in time for Herakleides' decree to be passed before the 
end of the Attic year 424/3 B.C."20 I would prefer assuming that both 
the treaty with Dareios and the honorary decree for Herakleides (who 
had aided the Athenian envoys) belong to a somewhat later time, 
soon before the Sicilian Expedition in 415 B.C.21 I also find it difficult to 

believe that this treaty was merely a renewal of the Peace ofKallias.22 

Not only was there no cause for a renewal (unless it had been broken) 
17 See also Thucydides 1.82.1; 2.7.1; Diodorus 12.41.1. 
18 Op.cit. 127-132; loc.cit. 
191GB 2.8 = SEG 19.16. 
20 See Andrewes loe.cit. 2-3. 
n See the doubts expressed by Gomme in "The Treaty of Callias," AJP 65 (1945) 332, 

and in his Commentary 1.333-334. 
2Z See Gomme loe.cit. 333 n.36 and Andrewes loe.cit. 5-6. 



ANTONY E. RAUBITSCHEK 157 

but the new treaty was according to Andocides a treaty of friendship, 
while the Peace of Kallias was no such thing. If the report of Andocides 
can be trusted at all, we should assume that the Athenians sought to 
strengthen their hand by getting financial aid from Persia, and to 
protect their back while they were engaged in Sicily. True enough, 
Thucydides fails to mention that the Athenians had a new treaty with 
Persia when they embarked on their venture to Sicily, or that the 
Athenians had abandoned an alliance with Dareios and supported 
the rebellious Amorges when Alcibiades promised to reconcile them 
with Tissaphernes (8.45-47). This would, however, explain and clarify 
the policy of Alcibiades. One could assume that he was behind the 
treaty with Dareios, that this treaty was abandoned when Alcibiades 
fell into disgrace, and that he made his way from Sparta to Persia 
because he had previously established contact with Tissaphernes. 
There may be some support for these assumptions in several writings 
of Demosthenes (10 and 11), in which he emphasizes the fact that the 
Persian king supported at one time or another the Athenians or the 
Spartans in order to let neither of them get too strong (10.51 and 11.6), 
a policy the advocacy of which Thucydides attributed to Alcibiades 
(8.46). 

The treaty between Persia and Athens may have been broken by 
the Athenian support of Amorges, and it may have been superseded 
by Dareios' treaty with Sparta (Thucydides 8.18). Thucydides may 
have failed to mention it for one reason or another, but the Athenians 
thought highly enough of it to honor the Clazomenian Herakleides 
for having aided in its conclusion; and when the stele recording these 
honors was destroyed, the Athenians renewed it early in the fourth 
century (SEG 19.16). At about the same time (392 B.C.), the orator 
Andocides made a special reference to the treaty which had been 
negotiated by his uncle. 

In this connection belongs the hostile remark of Theopompus, who 
rejected as spurious not only the Oath of Plataea 23 but also the treaty 
with Dareios (FGrHist 115 F 153); the passage is quoted by Bengston 
(Staatsvertraege) in connection with the Hellenic Oath before the battle 
of Salamis (No. 130) with which it has nothing to do, but it is neglected 
in connection with both the Peace of Kallias and that of Epilykos 
(Nos. 152 and 183). '0 fEU.TJVLKOS OPKOS KUTU"'€v8€Tat, OV 'AOTJvuiol cf>uaLv 

23 See my remarks in <'Herodotus and the Inscriptions," pp. 60--61 (supra n.4). 



158 THE TREATIES BETWEEN PERSIA AND ATHENS 

of-£6aat TOVS "E,\,\rrvas 7TPO TfjS f-£a)('}s TfjS €l' II'\aTatats 7TpOS TOVS f3apfJapovs, 

Ka~ at 7TPOS fJaatMa Llap€tol' 'Ae7Jl'alwl' 7TPOS flE'\'\7Jl'as avl'f)fjKat. This 
text has been unnecessarily amended and not fully interpreted, 
although Wade-Gery emphasized24 that Theopompus refers here to 
the treaty between the Athenians and Dareios II which was concluded 
soon after the accession of this monarch; whether Theopompus refers 
in another fragment (154) to the Peace of Kallias (as is generally 
assumed) or also to the later treaty with Dareios is not possible to say 
with confidence. The important thing, however, is the recognition of 
the contrast which Theopompus makes between the Oath which was 
sworn before the battle against the barbarians (7TpO TfjS f-£aXTlS .• • 7TpOS 

TOUS f3apf3apovs) and the treaty which was made with Dareios (7TpOS 

f3amMa Llap€tol') against the Greeks (7TpOS "EAATll'as). The falsehood 
and duplicity of the Athenians lie not in the fabrication of documents 
(as has been generally thought) but in the changed attitude towards 
the barbarians. Oath and treaty are contrasted in one and the same 
sentence which has but one verb; Theopompus challenges here the 
Hellenic patriotism and the sincerity of the Athenians. In fact, he was 
not the only historian who pointed to the contrast between the bold 
anti-barbarian language of the Greeks (and especially of the Athen­
ians) during the Persian Wars and their willingness to establish peace 
and friendly relations with Persia not too long afterwards. Diodorus 
reports (9.10.5), following a fourth century source: WS 7TOtfjaat TOUS 
"D\ \" , ,,..,, (;" \' n'\ M LIVlTll'as OT€ KaTTlywl'wal'TO TOl' '!;!'€p!, Tll'. wtJ-oaal' yap €l' l\aTatatS 

~ , ,~ "" n' " f) " .. • 7TapaOWa€tV 7Tawwl' 7Tatat T7Jl' 7TpOS TOVS €paas €X pal', €WS al' Ot 

,., , \ e''\ \" e' s. \ ~ \ 7TOTatJ-o£ p€watV €LS TTll' a aTTal' KaL YEl'OS al' pW7TWl' U Kat YTl Kap7TOVS 
"./.. I , ~, - I " f3 f3'" , 'f'EpTJ. TO OE T7JS TVX7JS EVf-£ETa7TTWTOl' E atWS EYYVTlaatJ-El'OL tJ-ETa TLl'a 

, , f3' \ 'A c:' (; \ .\ ,.." c: \ ,1,.,\' xpol'ol' €7Tp€a EVOl'TO 7TpOS pTac" €pr" 7Jl' TOl' Vtal' ,!;!,€pr" ov 7TEpt 'f't Las 
\ , 

Kat aVtJ-f-£aXLas. 

The oath and the treaty mentioned by Diodorus and those referred 
to by Theopompus are different. The one oath was sworn before the 
battle ofplataea and its text is well known (SEG 19.167), the other was 
sworn after the battle under circumstances reported by Plutarch 
(Aristides 21).25 Similarly, Diodorus mentions the treaty with Arta­
xerxes, thus the famous Peace of Kallias, the historicity of which is 
once more placed beyond all doubt, while Theopompus, as shown 
above, refers to the peace with Dareios II. 

24 Op.cit. 125-127. 
25 See my remarks in "The Covenant ofPlataea," TAPA 91 (1960) 178-183. 



ANTONY E. RAUBITSCHEK 159 

Looking back at the treaty relations between Persia and Athens, it 
appears that the first treaty was concluded with Dareios I at the 
request of the Athenians, who sought protection against the Spartans. 
This treaty was broken within ten years by the participation of the 
Athenians in the Ionian Revolt. Then came the great Persian Wars 
in which Persia sought to reduce Athens and to punish her. Instead, 
the power of Athens increased to such an extent that it was the 
Persian king who asked for a treaty, the famous Peace of Kallias, which 
ended a period of more than forty years during which Athens and 
Persia were at war with each other. From before the middle of the 
fifth century on, there existed once more treaty relations, but while 
at first the power of Athens dictated the terms, the situation changed 
during the Peloponnesian War, when Athens sought financial aid 
from Persia.26 Accordingly, a new treaty was signed but hardly imple­
mented, since the Athenians once more supported a revolt against 
Persia, and Persia herself, in turn, felt constrained to give aid to the 
Spartans. Subsequently, Persia's power increased until the famous 
Peace of Antalkidas could be signed, which the Athenians sadly com­
pared with the Peace of Kallias. As the century wore on, the threat of 
Macedonian power grew, and some Athenians considered once more 
the possibility of asking Persia for financial assistance. It is in this 
connection that Demosthenes' plea is to be understood, and his sug­
gestion to send an embassy to Persia; he urged his audience to forget 
the ancient prejudices against the Hbarbarian" (10.33), and to remem­
ber that Persia had been of help in the past (10.34 and 51) and might 
aid Athens in the future (10.52 and especially 11.6).27 In the more than 
one hundred and eighty years from the end of the sixth century to the 
twenties of the fourth, Athens and Persia had been at war for little 
more than forty years, from the Ionian Revolt to the Peace of Kallias. 

STANFORD UNIVERSITY 

September, 1964 

26 It is difficult to fit into this story the notice of Satyros that Anaxagoras was accused of 
medism (Diogenes Laertius 2.12); see my remarks in "Theopompus on Thucydides," 
Phoenix 14 (1960) 84. 

27 For Demosthenes 10 (the 'Fourth' Philippic) see S. D. Daitz, CP 52 (1957) 145-162, and 
especially 159 on 10.31-34.